Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[July 4th]

Reports that main portions of McCain-Feingold are now being upheld! People currently wading through a decision of over 300 pages.

[oceanview]

clearly that FEC law has just been trumped by this. the "candidate" may be able to run his own ad, but not an advocacy group. so who is the candidate?

[El Gato]

If we vote them out in a fit of single-issue petulance, then we will deserve a RAT majority we get. A RAT majority that will match the current hard-socialist-left makeup of that party, not the '90s centrist Bill Clinton version

ROTFLMAO! Bill and Shrillery, Centrists. Right.

Maybe if the heat is turned up, the frog will jump out of the pot after all.

[Fury]

I'm willing to put my name first, and in large type -- the way John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence so "King George can read this without his spectacles." But I do want at least a thousand more names on that ad. LOL.

Count me as one of those names. You sir, are skilled at cutting to the chase, as are Justices Thomas and Scalia. I am going dizzy, absolutely dizzy trying to follow the convoluted logic of the Court opinion...

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Howlin, I see you are dealing with another graduate of the todd "school" of political rhetoric.

Of course thinking about ones initials of ones screen name is missing from the syllabus.

In this case, BureaucratusMaximus, whose intials in a popular parlance would be BM(i.e bowel movement).

Wow! Did you come up with that all by yourself? A 3 sentence reposnse is pretty good for you, all things considering. I like word games too. Can I try?

Drug-warrior/

altruistic/

neocon/

excretement

I worked in a bowel movement...just for you.

[VRWC_minion]

But they can't do so in such a way that it abriges the freedom of speach, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble

The airways have been treated differently since their inception. We already regulate what can be said and who can say what on the airwaves. That speech has already been violated. Extending the govt reach to advertising before an election is no biggie.

If we were going to get all upset about the ad bans we should have spoken up when the feds banned foul language, nudity, violence as well as tobacco and alcholol advertising.

All this ruling does is say that political advertising doesn't have more rights to free speech onthe air waves than a tobacco advertiser.

[Dane]

Maybe if the heat is turned up, the frog will jump out of the pot after all

What is with your alls fascination with frogs. Sheesh sometime I believe that I have been transported to a PETA forum.

[VRWC_minion]

the President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution

How did he violate this oath if all branches of the gov't agree to it ? Isn't that the esence of what is constitutional ? Hasn't this law met all the tests that a law must meet ? I dare say most laws on the books have not met this standard.

[El Gato]

Gee, everybody is still speaking freely right now. When does that get cut off?

60 days before the next election, actually something less than that before the first primary. Unless you just want to sing to the choir, that will still be allowed.

[Moby Grape]

Oh come on, how could you think you are at a PETA forum?...I mean we COOK to frogs, not worship them.

[Dane]

Drug-warrior/

altruistic/

neocon/

excretement

Nice try but no cigar there dude, your acronym should read, DWANE.

Nice try anyway though, but don't give up your day job just yet.

[concerned about politics]

All this ruling does is say that political advertising doesn't have more rights to free speech on the air waves than a tobacco advertiser.

Oh oh. You're suppose to be in a state of panic. Like the Salem witch trials. Not panicing means you're really a witch.

[deport]

Lots of these being thrown overboard
and onto the thread, don'tcha know.

by

[Moby Grape]

of course, I meant to type "cook THE frogs", not "cook to frogs"....oh, well.

[VRWC_minion]

Suprising to me. I wouldn't think Zell would have been for it. Fine, take him off the list then.

Shoudn't he resign immediately and be replaced by a hillary clone ? Better to be pure, ya know.

[concerned about politics]

How did he violate this oath if all branches of the gov't agree to it ? Isn't that the esence of what is constitutional ? Hasn't this law met all the tests that a law must meet ? I dare say most laws on the books have not met this standard.

Will you cut that out? This is a Bush Bash thread. Now get with the program. (You really ARE a witch!)

[BlackRazor]

so if the Congress Critters feel a need for ads to be run prior to election day critizing candidates they'll rewrite the law....

The problem is that incumbent Congress Critters will never feel a need to allow challengers to run ads to criticize them prior to election day. This law strengthens incumbency.

[Rebelbase]

"Oh... they said you are 2/3rds of a person too...."

It took a bloody war and over 1/2 million lives to straighten that one out.

[El Gato]

THey're going to strike down the 2nd next, and then the election in 2004 will be irrelevant.

That they won't do, probably, they'll just continue to refuse to hear any cases where it would apply, thus allowing the laws infringing the RKBA of the people to stand.

[4CJ]

When the time comes, like JimRob's first trip to Washington to protest the Clintons in the White House, I hope 1,000 or more of my closest friends will decide to stand with me.

I'd like to be there. Justice Scalia already will.

If the Bill of Rights had intended an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of the officeholder to agree with those who agree with him, and to speak more with his supporters than his opponents, it would surely have said so. It did not do so, I think, be cause the juice is not worth the squeeze.
Justice Scalia, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 US __ (Opinion of Scalia, J at 14), 2003

[Who is John Galt?]

Did you scream the same thing when Reagan signed a tax increase in 82.

Do you disapprove of Mr. Reagan, or the tax increase, or both?

If you advocate 'principle over Constitution,' be prepared to defend Hillary Clinton's actions if she is ever elected President. (I can guarantee she will 'act on her principles,' rather than defend the Constitution.) And if you disagreed with the tax increase, I must ask: why not amend the Constitution to restrict or prevent them?

;>)